restore_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool has a default dry-run mode for safety, requires explicit confirmation to apply changes, and restores from a backup file. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., machine downtime, error handling) or response format, which would be useful for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical usage details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with safety features), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key parameters, but could improve by mentioning potential impacts (e.g., machine state changes) or error scenarios, which would enhance safety and predictability for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'confirm': it controls whether changes are applied (true) or it's a dry run (false), which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's technical description. It doesn't add details for 'filename', but the schema covers it well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Restore') and resource ('machine settings from a backup'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'backup_config' (which creates backups) and 'list_backups' (which lists them), establishing a unique role in the toolset.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Defaults to dry-run mode showing what would change. Requires confirm=true to actually apply.' This provides clear guidance on the default behavior and the condition needed for actual restoration, helping the agent decide based on the desired outcome (preview vs. apply).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.